Scotland and England—A Case in Point

An Observer

A writer, under the signature Publius or The Federalist, No. V,
in the Daily Advertiser, and in the New York
Packet, with a view of proving the advantages
which, he says, will be derived by the states if the new constitution
is adopted, has given extracts of a letter from Queen Anne to the
Scotch parliament, on the subject of a union between Scotland and
England.

I would beg leave to remark, that Publius has been very
unfortunate in selecting these extracts as a case in point, to
convince the people of America of the benefits they would derive from
a union, under such a government as would be effected by the new
system. It is a certainty, that when the union was the subject of
debate in the Scottish legislature, some of their most sensible and
disinterested nobles, as well as commoners! (who were not corrupted
by English gold), violently opposed the union, and predicted that the
people of Scotland would, in fact, derive no advantages from a
consolidation of government with England; but, on the contrary, they
would bear a great proportion of her debt, and furnish large bodies of
men to assist in her wars with France, with whom, before the union,
Scotland was at all times on terms of the most cordial amity. It was
also predicted that the representation in the parliament of Great
Britain, particularly in the house of commons, was too small;
forty-five members being very far from the proportion of Scotland,
when its extent and numbers were duly considered; and that even they,
being so few, might (or at least a majority of them might) at all
times be immediately under the influence of the English ministry; and,
of course, very little of their attention would be given to the true
interest of their constituents, especially if they came in competition
with the prospects of views of the ministry. How far these predictions
have been verified I believe it will not require much trouble to
prove. It must be obvious to everyone, the least acquainted with
English history, that since the union of the two nations the great
body of the people in Scotland are in a much worse situation now, than
they would be, were they a separate nation. This will be fully
illustrated by attending to the great emigrations which are made to
America. For if the people could have but a common support at home, it
is unreasonable to suppose that such large numbers would quit their
country, break from the tender ties of kindred and friendship and
trust themselves on a dangerous voyage across a vast ocean, to a
country of which they can know but very little except by common
report. I will only further remark, that it is not about two or three
years since a member of the British parliament (I believe
Mr. Dempster) gave a most pathetic description of the sufferings of
the commonalty of Scotland, particularly on the sea coast, and
endeavored to call the attention of parliament to their distresses,
and afford them some relief by encouraging their fisheries. It
deserves also to be remembered, that the people of Scotland, in the
late war between France and Great Britain, petitioned to have arms and
ammunition supplied them by their general government, for their
defense, alleging that they were incapable of defending themselves and
their property from an invasion unless they were assisted by
government. It is a truth that their petitions were disregarded, and
reasons were assigned, that it would be dangerous to entrust them with
the means of defense, as they would then have it in their power to
break the union. From this representation of the situation of
Scotland, surely no one can draw any conclusion that this country
would derive happiness or security from a government which would, in
reality, give the people but the mere name of being free. For if the
representation, stipulated by the constitution, framed by the late
convention, be attentively and dispassionately considered, it must be
obvious to every disinterested observer (besides many other weighty
objections which will present themselves to view), that the number is
not, by any means, adequate to the present inhabitants of this
extensive continent, much less to those it will contain at a future
period.

I observe that the writer above mentioned, takes great pains to
show the disadvantages which would result from three or four distinct
confederacies of these states. I must confess that I have not seen, in
any of the pieces published against the proposed constitution, any
thing which gives the most distant idea that their writers are in
favor of such governments; but it is clear these objections arise from
a consolidation not affording security for the liberties of their
country, and from hence it must evidently appear, that the design of
Publius, in artfully holding up to public view [the bugbear of] such
confederacies, can be with no other intention than wilfully to deceive
his fellow citizens. I am confident it must be, and that it is, the
sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there
should be a confederated national government, but that it should be
one which would have a control over national and external matters
only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of
the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would
give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our
liberties at home.